Sort of.

So, this coming summer I plan to start a Star Wars game with my friends outside of my current RPG group, since they have a different way about them that I feel suits Star Wars better than my current group. So, rather than be caught unawares when we get to the first session and I realize I'm drastically unprepared, I'll get to work early.

First off, I'm using the Beta for now, since the Core Rulebook isn't released, but I'll also have EotE and AoR for if any of the players want to use that. The players have used the rules in the past when we played the Beginner's Box, and they are wonderful at roleplaying, so I don't think introduction will be an issue. The issue will likely be my lack of ingenuity.

I've concluded that for the good of all, my games for Star Wars should be mission based. If it's sandbox, then there's too much to do and it all becomes too crazy as I have no idea what to do next while I throw random garbage at the PC's. But if it's mission based, I still face the issue of adapting to the players as they do unexpected things, which results in garbage. By my very nature I over think tiny facets of info, so when they're ignored (and they always are), I generally force the PC's to take notice, and when they ignore large plot points, I'm left at a loss.

Anyone have any good tips? I know I've been over this general issue before, but these points specifically are generally an issue. Thanks in advance!

This is probably way oversimplifying it, but I split the goals of gaming groups into two categories:

• game-related goals , using the system and dice to mechanically defeat enemies and acquire new skills/abilities
• story-related goals , working to make a compelling plot connected to the characters that has the Star Wars "feel"

These new books I would say favor the latter over the former, but that's not to say that the "game" aspect for FaD is not there (quite the opposite!). The open rolls, dice mechanics, and free-form descriptions of location seem to lend themselves to using the games as a tool to really imagine a story.

Most of the groups I've gamed with are more about the story than the system. I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are making this for a group of Star Wars fans (since it's outside of your normal gaming group). I would be up front with them about the goals of the game and focus on their characters. I love how all three games now have strong characters hooks (Obligation, Duty, and Morality), and how those can be used to make for interesting conflicts for the characters.

If you make it clear not only in-game, but out-of-game, that there is a plot you would like to see them do and that they would enjoy the plot, then I would expect the players to want to follow along and see what it is.

Some might say this curtails player freedom, but I think it's being pragmatic given time limitations. Yes, you could spend a whole session finding the long-lost brother of some random bartender at a cantina even if the mission is to intercept an Imperial courier. But it's probably not going to be as rewarding. It's tough to do everything on the fly. Certainly allow for player choices and run with it, but the main mission should connect players to what they are doing.

Of course that's just my opinion--I could be wrong.

But if it's mission based, I still face the issue of adapting to the players as they do unexpected things, which results in garbage. By my very nature I over think tiny facets of info, so when they're ignored (and they always are), I generally force the PC's to take notice, and when they ignore large plot points, I'm left at a loss.

You've probably seen this, but it's an essential read:

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1118/roleplaying-games/three-clue-rule

Basically, you can't expect the players to notice anything, it's gravy if they do. No critical plot points should be stalled because the players didn't figure it out.

You also have to expect the players to "notice" things that aren't there...the fun part is deciding whether to roll with it and let it become true, or find an in-game way to make it clear that it's not.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mission-based"...I thought that was "sandbox"...? It doesn't sound like there's an overarching story, and it might be worth it to at least have some background sense of progress or impending doom. It could be as sector changing as a Hutt is making a power play, and the PCs are on the losing side; or as small as an NPC ally is having marital issues...that could eventually involve bounty hunters Pick some external background threads and run at least three of them continually. You don't even have to know how they will resolve when you start, just that they're there and you can reference them to give the players a sense of living in a dynamic world that doesn't only revolve around them.

Thanks for the advice. I think I was having a confidence issue with how I normally end up GMing (mostly railroading to tell my story in which the galaxy is full of good people and happy endings), but I've recently started doing a game where I believe I've effectively accomplished the style of the best GM I've played under, my brother (the galaxy is out to get you and you're probably going to lose). While the style may sound harsh, it's incredibly fun to play in, since everything becomes realistic and dangerous. If the GM is willing to let you die, there's more threat in playing the game, so you make better decisions rather than die.

Sorry for continually asking for help; I've solved the problem by now, I believe, and will probably be fine whenever I get into a tough spot if I just reread some of the stuff I've been told in the past.

Castle, I'm glad you've got a direction. I would just say be careful about hitting the "galaxy-out-to-get-you" too hard. I say this from personal experience... (Ah, my younger GM'ing days...) There is a balance. I think the EotE book says something akin to, "leave them hungry." That was specifically about goods and finances, but I'd say that in terms of victories as well. The contrasts can serve the story well.

I like to use a model I saw in some CRPG's now, where the main mission may be accomplished but the little side missions could be totally blown and NPCs could die, cool gear gets trashed, or something like that. The dice are involved, but roleplaying usually has the bigger emphasis. That's just us, though, and every group is different. You must do what you feel is right, of course.

Side note: I didn't GM this one, but my friends' characters got waxed by a bunch of chefs in the WEG SWRPG. They still curse the magic die to this day...

Happy gaming!

Side note: I didn't GM this one, but my friends' characters got waxed by a bunch of chefs in the WEG SWRPG. They still curse the magic die to this day...

This sounds hilarious, I'm going to steal it I can just see the attempted "flee the restaurant through the kitchen" scene, and a stubborn round moustachioed chef yelling "not in MY kitchen!"

A thought on sandbox and thinking on the fly.

I think it comes natural to others but just like any skill it can be learned. It took me years to learn how and eventually it just came naturally. I run. Oth sandbox and linear modules. I like the sandbox because the players already have their own goal and set forth to accomplish it...it really gets the mind flowing.

Basically your making semi-arbitrary responses to situations as fairly as possible. When a player says-- I want X so I begin to do Y it's your job to think Z. So now you introduce what Z is and well...Z might begin with A which leads to B and C. So it's almost a math or formula when it occurs. You can make the response be anything and anyone in between their goals. The hard part may be the characters you make and remembering them and how they be relevant or irrelevant to the story.

Hard to explain but thinking on the fly is really what makes a non-linear sandbox type of play style. I'm sorta used to it as I ran LARP games with 30 plus people wanting to do a million objects each. Not to mention hosting the yearly 200 plus people events.